Dune- The Letdown

[Arataniello]

As for what came after, well. . . :sick: :mad:

Why don't you tell us what you really think.

Aratan

[Ser Warpechowski]

Just read Dune, nothing more.

I think it is well know that DUNE itself is one of the best books of SCI-FI ever made, not the sequels.

[Multaniette]

I am one of those people who read Dune and have no intentions of reading the sequels. I had my issues with the original but there's no denying it's a masterful piece of storytelling.

[Gerold Hightower]

The first three books are meant to be a trilogy. If you read only the first book you read only half the (original) story. Appreciation of the later books is mainly a matter of maturity. Frank Herbert didn't write for the teenage crowd that makes the bulk of the SF/ Fantasy audience these days. If you think only the first book is good you should probably try the others again in a decade or so.

[Brude]

If you think only the first book is good you should probably try the others again in a decade or so.

Er, I did try rereading Children of Dune again in my 20s (I'm in my mid-30's now) and I'm tellin' ya, I really don't like the book. I had low tolerance for bad books even in my teens. I thought novel of The Godfather was trash and put it down because of an early sex scene where he describes "fireballs of lust" thrusting from Sonny's "loins," or something terrible like that. I mean, I was no prude...a hot sex scene (like the three vampires in Dracula who seduce Harker) was something I really liked, but if it's done bad. Bah. I felt that in a different way Children of Dune was just lame pulp sci-fi, whereas the original Dune was a masterpiece.

[Multaniette]

I am perfectly fine with having read (supposedly) half the original trilogy. As far as I am concerned, the ending of Dune provided an excellent closure to the story and I really don't have any interest in reading further works set in the same milieu.

Frank Herbert didn't write for the teenage crowd that makes the bulk of the SF/ Fantasy audience these days.

That's just condescending bullshit.

[Forderz]

AS a member of the teenage crowd, I think I'm a fair guide on what a larger concnsus would reveal. I stopped reading Dune after the 200th page... It just didn't "speak" to me. I had the same problem with Shougun, which is apperently a peice of art. But I liked King Rat, a book by the same author... And I liked early Salvator, but his recent books kinda "blow..."

My point is...

Frank Herbert didn't write for the teenage crowd that makes the bulk of the SF/ Fantasy audience these days.

Is a opinion, not fact.

[JCoj]

When I read threads such as these, the schoolteacher side of me cannot help but to wonder how many other teachers would be weeping now over the most grievous lack of critical thinking/debate elements here (not to mention a worrisome amount of misspellings ).

Detail why you feel this way. What is it about the sequels that makes them far from an enjoyable experience? What is it about the characterizations that you do not like? What worked for you in the prequels that didn't happen in the original series?

The sequels were bad because they detailed an entirely unreal scenario, and the characters were shallow and unfulfilled. In God Emperor, Leto ruled for like two thousand years, right? well, consider what we have done in the last two thousand years. Swords to Guns to Missile Defense Systems. So if Leto ruled for two thousand years, or even one thousand (its been awhile), there should have been a corresponding surge of human creativity. No matter how oppressive you are, there is no way you can totally suppress human intellect for that long. As well, the character of Duncan Idaho just seemed to be a easy way to keep from introducing new characters. All Herbert did was stick Idaho in and he was saved form trying to bring new characters into the world. Now, the argument could be made that it was because of Idaho's genes that he was brought back, but seriously. It's not history; the author is making it up, and so the reintroduction of the Idaho character is pouintless and detracts from the book. In the next two novels, all the plot was basically just (as I have said before) drug addicted sex maniacs waging a pathetic war on other drug addicted sex maniacs. Granted, some of the characters were entertaining, but Herbert failed to completely render any one of them as a person, instead setting them up as puppets with a backstory. The last two books were basically nothing more than an excuse to keep the Dune series going.

Now, as for the prequels (by which I mean Ledgends of Dune, not the House ones), they actually had character development, a plotline, and added to the overall baskstory of Dune. They made sense and there wasn't the jarring time leaps as in the last five novels of Dune. As somebody posted befotre, it has an advanced human culture waging war with intelligent machines, and it actually shows how they started fighting, why they are fighting, and why peace won't be reached between the two. They offer a plausible future for humanity, and shows how the world of the original Dune series was created. They add to the series, rather than continue it, which is how sequels (and prequels by extension) are based.

And who is writing Sandworms of Dune anyway? Is it still Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert, or did Frank Herbert start it?

[FearlessLeader]

The first Dune book was a masterpiece. It contained deep thoughts about power, mystical elements, a more gritty, realistic (about human nature) sci-fi plot (almost Martinesque, in some ways) with good characters and a well-crafted plot. Then, I read Messiah and Children, which were alright, but not great. Then I read God Emperor, which was deadly dull. The characters' motivations didn't entirely make sense, and very little happened in about 700 pages of novel. The philosophy wasn't terribly great in that book either, I beleive. Then, I read Heretics and Chapterhouse. They started to get better, moving beyond Paul's legacy into new characters. I actually enjoyed the Legends sereis, Hunters of Dune, and I don't understand why everybody has beef with the House books-- I found them acceptable, and thought that they set up the story well and logically for the events of Dune.

[Luzifer's right hand]

I always thought Dune would have worked better in a Fantasy setting as the stuff with the holtzman shields is rather contrived.

[salinea]

I always thought Dune would have worked better in a Fantasy setting as the stuff with the holtzman shields is rather contrived.

I guess that's why the Prince of Nothing series is so good.

[oba]

The sequels were bad because they detailed an entirely unreal scenario, and the characters were shallow and unfulfilled. In God Emperor, Leto ruled for like two thousand years, right? well, consider what we have done in the last two thousand years. Swords to Guns to Missile Defense Systems. So if Leto ruled for two thousand years, or even one thousand (its been awhile), there should have been a corresponding surge of human creativity. No matter how oppressive you are, there is no way you can totally suppress human intellect for that long.

Hmm. I thought that Herbert went to great lengths to explain that Leto II's goal was to stifle that growth and development, recognizing that it cannot be stopped completely. Leto II created, for the ultimate purpose of his Golden Path, a relatively stagnant society.

As well, the character of Duncan Idaho just seemed to be a easy way to keep from introducing new characters.

Perhaps, but Idaho's the only holdover. I'd agree if there were gholas of every other character from the original trilogy walking around (and I truly hope this won't be the case with Sandworms of Dune), but that's not the case in God Emperor.

I didn't care for the last two books, but I simply don't agree that the characters were simply puppets with a backstory.

[Fez]

I'll also agree that the first Dune was a great novel, or at least the first 2/3rds of it were. A little while after Paul and Jessica join up with the Fremen I think it took a dip in quality, but was still a very, very good piece of work. There was a believable world, believable characters, a kickass evil villain, there was a rich story to be told.

Then came the sequels. Ugh. Dune: Messiah and Children of Dune are some of the worst books I've read in a while, all the more so because they descend from a great book. That rich universe descends into a single planet, and everyone is just bemoaning their lot in life, or something. God: Emperor was horrible, and made no sense to me at all. Not as in a didn't know what was going on, more as in it was just stupid and shouldn't be going on. The Heretics and Chapterhouse were okay, I guess. But they were so different from where the series started that they seemed a totally different thing. Basically my biggest problem is that the sequels all lacked so much that the first Dune had.

The House books sucked, 'nough said.

The Legends books were again okay though. Certainly not great, mostly due to pretty average writing. But the ideas and the world were at least interesting, and that is something.

The last(?) book might be okay, I dunno. But I read that the no-ship they're all on has the genes of like all the main characters throughout the series. So people like Paul, Stilgar, and Baron Harkonnen will be showing up again, and that could suck majorly.

[Tears of Lys]

Hmm. I thought that Herbert went to great lengths to explain that Leto II's goal was to stifle that growth and development, recognizing that it cannot be stopped completely. Leto II created, for the ultimate purpose of his Golden Path, a relatively stagnant society.

Perhaps, but Idaho's the only holdover. I'd agree if there were gholas of every other character from the original trilogy walking around (and I truly hope this won't be the case with Sandworms of Dune), but that's not the case in God Emperor.

I didn't care for the last two books, but I simply don't agree that the characters were simply puppets with a backstory.

I agree with Oba. Leto II is one of the most interesting characters in literature. He knew that his Golden Path had to end. He set all the plans in motion for his final demise, but you could feel his agony, both physical and mental, when it finally happened.

I'm not sure I ever really understood what the Atreides saw in Duncan Idaho, or he in them, for that matter, that tied them so together; but the books make it clear that he had something to warrant his existence in the past and the future.

[Korr]

Count me as another one who loved the original Dune but loathed the sequels. Dune has so many things going for it. The setting is one thing I'll always love, it was truly visionary in its build and implementation. A great idea done exceptionally well. You only see a masterpiece like that once every ten years or so.

I would've been happy just reading an ecology book about Arrakis the way it was at the point Dune was written. Everything after Dune just kind-of spoils it, because although Arrakis might be the centre of the civilised universe, we've already learned its secrets in the first book. And the worst part is that most of the action in Messiah and Children is taking place off-planet and off-screen. It's like Herbert is spending two entire books just trying to get rid of Paul.

I've read up to and including Children, and the original Dune is the only one I ever bother rereading.

[IheartTesla]

The original Dune was a great novel. I was willing to tolerate the next two books simply because of the presence of Paul. Once Paul died, and Leto II came into the picture, the books became a little insufferable. No one likes a know-it-all who endlessly philosophises, and has enough power to destroy most others in the universe.

Or maybe thats why some people like PoN as well as God Emperor.

[salinea]

The original Dune was a great novel. I was willing to tolerate the next two books simply because of the presence of Paul. One Paul died, and Leto II came into the picture, the books became a little insufferable. No one likes a know-it-all who endlessly philosophises, and has enough power to destroy most others in the universe.

Or maybe thats why some people like PoN as well as God Emperor.

With leeway given to the fact I read one some 10 years after the other, Bakker doesn't make me feel he thinks Kelhus is right. However I felt that Leto's portrayal was endorsed by the author.

Also there's a sexism aspect. Bakker portrays an incredibly sexist society, but it's problematicized, and I wouldn't call the book sexist.

Dune howevers is a sexist series of books.

[Tears of Lys]

The original Dune was a great novel. I was willing to tolerate the next two books simply because of the presence of Paul. One Paul died, and Leto II came into the picture, the books became a little insufferable. No one likes a know-it-all who endlessly philosophises, and has enough power to destroy most others in the universe.

Or maybe thats why some people like PoN as well as God Emperor.

I guess the moral is: If you do know it all, keep it to yourself.

[beniowa]

I also read up to third the book and didn't bother to read the rest. Not really sure why, but maybe because I felt Children of Dune provided a finality to the story. Dune is definitely the best of the series.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Dune howevers is a sexist series of books.

Would you mind going more into your reasoning about this?